Some residents are up in arms over plans by their parish council to fell nine mature trees in the village cemetery to make way for a new path.

Dunston Parish Council is proposing to fell the line of trees including six English Yews, to open up access to an extension of the burial ground on Back Lane, while creating new paths to overcome the extremely uneven and unsafe surface caused by rabbits, undergrowth and tree roots.

Coun Russ McLuckie, parish council chairman, explained that the existing cemetery is small and almost full and “there are reports of tree roots damaging headstones,” while the cemetery extension is hidden behind the tree line unused.

He explained that at the July meeting councillors agreed a scheme to provide footpaths, increase planting of trees to reduce noise from the neighbouring Lincoln to Sleaford railway line, add suitable seating, and remove some trees to increase access and visibility to the extended area.

Dunston Cemetery - residents have objected to the proposed felling of the line of trees in the background.

placeholder image — Dunston Cemetery - residents have objected to the proposed felling of the line of trees in the background.

Offers of support had been gathered from local businesses and the work would cost around £6,000.

However, following comments from a number unhappy residents, an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting was held on August 17, when over 30 villagers attended to express their concerns.

Resident Helen Barbour said: “The majority of residents who attended were against the proposed unnecessary felling of the trees.”

Ms Barbour claimed there had been no ecological, arboricultural, or bat activity survey commissioned before the decision. “The six yews are recognised bat-roosting habitat (protected under conservation laws). Little owls have also been observed in the area around the cemetery – all British owl species are protected.”

The cemetery extension, to which councillors want to open up access with new paths.

She also argued that the council’s own policies allow for only essential / minimal works and that healthy trees "will only be fully removed when there is no other option." North Kesteven District Council's Tree Policy goes further, stating there is "a presumption against the removal of trees that are healthy, unless the basis for their removal has a clear and overriding legal, arboricultural, or ecological justification."

Ms Barbour claimed: “None of the nine is dead, dying, or diseased. A path can be routed around them.”

Since the opposition surfaced, the council has already suggested reducing the original number of intended footpaths following advice of an arboriculturist from North Kesteven District Council who would also advise on whether tree roots are causing headstone damage.

Coun McLuckie told the Sleaford Standard: “(The meeting) was a welcome opportunity to explain more fully the objectives the parish council wanted to achieve and why they were necessary.”

He said: “It was obvious that all wanted to see an improvement in its safety and its appeal to visitors, but varying opinions were given on the way to achieve this.

“It was agreed to continue to receive input from residents up until our parish council meeting on September 14 when a final decision will be made.

“Some ideas have already been submitted.”

The tree felling was deferred until after this next meeting.

“Whichever decision is made, there will be an increase in the number of trees on site,” insisted Coun McLuckie.